United States v. Teeslink, 23878.

Decision Date02 February 1970
Docket NumberNo. 23878.,23878.
Citation421 F.2d 768
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Clarence Edward TEESLINK, Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

William N. Fielden (argued), La Jolla, Cal., for appellant.

Shelby Gott, (argued), Joseph A. Milchen, Asst. U. S. Attys., Edwin L. Miller, U. S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for appellee.

Before HUFSTEDLER and TRASK, Circuit Judges, and PLUMMER,* District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

On November 1, 1967, appellant, Clarence Edward Teeslink (hereinafter Teeslink), enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. On December 16, 1967, he went absent without official leave and traveled to the State of Washington to locate his father. He had no other way to get there so he stole a car and drove it from the State of California to the State of Washington.

On January 12, 1968, he was arrested, and on February 26, 1968, he pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington at Spokane to a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. As a result of his conviction, Teeslink was placed on probation for a period of three years.

On March 17, 1968, twenty days from the date of Teeslink's conviction in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, he stole another car and drove it from San Diego, California to Eloy, Arizona. On October 30, 1968, he was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California of a violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312, interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. A timely appeal was taken to this court which has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294(4).

The questions presented by this appeal are: (1) Does entrapment apply only to law enforcement officials? and (2) Did the trial court err in refusing to give an instruction on entrapment? We shall first consider whether an instruction on entrapment should have been given.

After Teeslink's conviction of interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on February 26, 1968, his probation officer in Spokane talked to a Captain at the Marine Base. Thereafter, he told Teeslink that the Marine Corps wanted him returned to San Diego, California so they could process his discharge. The following day, Teeslink was returned to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot in San Diego.

At the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, he was taken to an office where, among other things, he was told by a Captain there wasn't any way he could get out of the Marine Corps. The Captain said nothing to Teeslink to indicate that Teeslink should go out and steal another car.

From this office Teeslink was escorted into a hallway by a Staff Sergeant. As they walked down the hallway, Teeslink initiated a conversation in the course of which he told the Staff Sergeant what his probation officer and the Captain had told him about his getting out of the Marines. The Sergeant replied that the only way Teeslink could get out of the Marine Corps was to steal another car or to go AWOL. This Staff Sergeant did not encourage Teeslink to steal a car, and the foregoing was the only comment made by him on this subject.

Teeslink was delivered by this first Staff Sergeant to the Second Correctional Custody Platoon where he was turned over to a second Staff Sergeant. This Sergeant asked Teeslink what he was in for and Teeslink told him. The Sergeant stated that he couldn't get out of the Marines by just going on unauthorized leave, that he would have to steal a car or something. He stated this to Teeslink on three or four occasions during conversations held between them while Teeslink was in detention. On the seventeenth day of his detention, Teeslink went AWOL and stole a motor vehicle, which he drove from San Diego to Eloy, Arizona.

When Teeslink was returned from Spokane, Washington to San Diego on February 27, 1968, it was his understanding that he was to be discharged from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • U.S. v. Bailey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • October 19, 1978
    ...States v. Glassel, 488 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 941, 94 S.Ct. 1945, 40 L.Ed.2d 292 (1974); United States v. Teeslink, 421 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1970).39 United States v. Glassel, supra ; United States v. Ramsey, 374 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1967).40 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Handb......
  • U.S. v. Perl
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • September 22, 1978
    ...1071. The duty of determining whether or not defendant has met this initial burden is that of the district judge. United States v. Teeslink, 421 F.2d 768, 771 (9 Cir. 1970). In the instant case, the district court determined that defendant failed to carry his initial burden of showing some ......
  • United States v. Leslie
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • February 17, 1970

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT